Nov
03
2009
A Christian Heresy?
As I’ve said before, in print and on this blog, I don’t think the talk of “building the kingdom” or our role in “ushering in the kingdom” is language that can be supported by Scripture. God already reigns, and he doesn’t need our help to get on the throne!). The kingdom of this world will become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ. We should live out the ethics of the kingdom, pray for the kingdom, and by faith we can receive the kingdom. But we do not bring about God’s reign.
Along these lines, here’s John Goldingay in his soon to be released Old Testament Theology: Israel’s Life:
The Psalter goes on to protest about how things are in the world (Ps. 3; 4; 5). Here a link between politics and ethics on one hand and prayer on the other becomes more overt. The world’s not being as it should be may be a reason for human initiative; it is certainly a reason for prayer. Ethical commitment without calling on God appropriates too much responsibility to us as human beings.
The Psalms will later declare that “Yhwh reigns” or “Yhwh is king” or “Yhwh has become king” (e.g., Ps. 96:10). Generally speaking, it does not look as if this is the case. Israel’s world often looked like one in which Pharaoh or Sennacherib reigned, not Yhwh, as our world does not look like one in which Jesus is Lord. Like us, then, when Israel entered worship and declared that Yhwh reigned, it was often making statements that went against the evidence. It was creating a world.
Admittedly, talk of “creating a world” could be misleading. The Psalms’ conviction is that in the real world (as opposed to the world that we see) Yhwh indeed reigns. In worship we are making the already-real reality in our ears and before our eyes. We may then be inspired to go and live out our ethical and political commitment in the world outside worship in the knowledge that the world in which Yhwh reigns is indeed the real world. But we would be unwise to make that a covert way of reckoning that it is our task to bring about Yhwh’s reign, which would be laughable if it were not a Christian heresy that is alive and well (p. 27 [paragraph breaks are mine]).
We would do well to expect less of the “already” in the world, and expect to see more of it in our worship. I encourage you to read the Goldingay excerpt a second time.
28 Comments
[...] about the Kingdom of God this morning with Kevin DeYoung, John Goldingay, and the Psalter. Categories: Articles of Interest Tags: John Goldingay, Kevin DeYoung, Kingdom of God, [...]
But Kevin, isn’t that a bit like telling a farmer that he doesn’t grow corn? Well of course he knows that he doesn’t “make” the corn grow, but he does everything to ensure that it does, including bringing in the harvest. Don’t most folks mean by “building the Kingdom” that they are living out their “ethical and political commitment in the world outside worship in the knowledge that the world in which Yhwh reigns is indeed the real world.” And shouldn’t our actions be in line with our prayer, “Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done ON EARTH as it is in Heaven”?
Kevin is right. Do a word search of “Kingdom of God” and you’ll never find a reference to our role in “ushering” or “building” the Kingdom. Rather, we see many references to entering or inheriting the Kingdom.
And to be fair, Kevin says we are to live out the ethics of the Kingdom, but we have no part in instituting it. All Kevin is arguing for is a change in mindset on God’s sovereignty in bringing about the Kingdom, moving away from language that syntactically assumes we are the catalyst – however unintentional.
Great thoughts, Kevin. Thanks.
[...] 3, 2009 in Uncategorized De Young on why we do not ‘bring in God’s kingdom’, here [...]
Ok, I can see your point here, even though I think that Goldingay is over-thinking it a little. We don’t make the kingdom, nor do we bring God to rule. However, if I don’t do what Christ clearly commanded (make disciples), then he will have to use someone else, or some other method. Whether Goldingay likes it or not, or even if it’s overly effective, God has chosen to use believers to make more believers. So yes, in some way, we “make” the kingdom, much like a farmer might “make” a crop.
Sam, I liked your comments. Having grown up on a farm, I understand perfectly your sentiments.
The ideas of “bringing about” or “catalyst” is not what I was refuting. Just as no farmer in his right mind thinks he created the seed or has the power to make it grow, I think the majority of the folks who use the terminology of “building” and “ushering” are using that to describe their living out their “ethical and political commitments” in the real world…and the preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom. The metaphor would be more like “planting seed” or “introducing leaven.” And I think it’s an attempt to stir folks out of passivity and complacency. So I think “heresy” again is slung around too carelessly, just as carelessly as using “ushering” and “building.” And doesn’t “Thy Kingdom come” = “Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven”? Isn’t that “making the Kingdom evident”? Of course it’s not us making God King or putting Him on His throne…that’s just silly.
(Acts 14:22) “Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.”
(Col 4:11) “And Jesus, which is called Justus, who are of the circumcision. These only are my fellowworkers unto the kingdom of God, which have been a comfort unto me.”
@sam Yes, I would agree that the word Heresy is too strong and slung around too often.
Dan Smith: Thanks. I also grew up on a farm. And as I recall, and I’m sure you do too, if we just left the fields as God gave them, the only harvest would be tares and weeds. So sure, we’ve “inherited” or “received” the farm, but there is Kingdom work to be done for IT to “come,” the seed must be “planted” for IT to “grow.” Otherwise you can’t distinguish the “farm” from what surrounds it.
i believe that heresy is the correct word here, by definition: any opinions or doctrines at variance with the official or orthodox position
intent has no bearing, only accuracy.
and i think that many who say they are working toward the kingdom now, have clearly altered from scriptural truth.
it seems that they feel that the old fashioned “God’s will, God’s way” is too slow, too ineffective.
so the method is altered to expidite what the perception of the goal is. disciples are made of people who do not truly believe in Christ as told from the gospel, and truly, the gospel itself is changed to become a bit more physical and temporal. it clearly does not match the Matthew 16 account.
missing the mark for any reason, even one that seems honorable, is still a miss.
Kevin,
I think you’re being a bit too free with the word “heresy” here.
Chris B.
what does that word mean to you?
what does it mean to Christ?
Mike,
Who determines “orthodoxy”? You, or the church councils of the past and ultimately Scripture? The old confessions are not so dogmatic as you about calling differences in eschatology “heresy”. I will go with the councils and let this one remain open for debate.
Also, “planting and watering” was Paul’s way, and it was necessary for the kingdom to grow. Predestination is the context in which we breathe, and it involves doing the will of the Father. If His will is the total transformation of the world in temporal history, who can stop it?
so we postmodernally state that no one can know what is truly true, and take any profession of intent as solid?
doesn’t jibe with so very much of the New Testiment.
if it grows God did it? like the JW, LDS, and Islam?
nope, there is truth to be known, and any variance is a “miss”.
and a miss by definition, when taught, is Heresy.
and the teacher …
(Chris, the following is not aimed at you, i do not know you, and couldn’t possibly make any determination as to your orthodoxy, orthopraxy, intent, or purpose.)
interesting that that word, used to describe men offends, but altering the word of God does not.
Mike,
Huh? Not following you. How post-modernity has anything to do with this escapes me. Unless you are suggesting that all the previous councils and confessions are post-modern(?). This is both silly and chronologically impossible.
Heresy places a person outside of the fold of the church. Using the term should be limited to those things which the church has understood to truly be heresy. In this case, eschatology, there has been wiggle room — post-mill, a-mill, pre-mill, etc. And room for debate, not simply mud-slinging.
At the moment there are many debates happening, which is healthy and good for the body of Christ. But, as far as I know, no church body has declared anyone a heretic yet. Until then, your private accusations mean nothing. No one is the pope here.
Sorry if we are discussing two different things.
I am great with the councils and confessions; I am not so good with the definition as you seem to have proposed it.
If heresy places a person outside of the fold of the church, then the only heresy possible is unbelief. Instead, I would propose that heresy is any teaching which does not align with scripture, and I am great with the use of the creeds and confessions to help but not replace scripture.
Apostasy fits your statement better I think.
Let me begin here.
I have spent significant time dealing with the effect that “church growth” and “emergent” philosophies and practices within a church that I was attending. The determinations that were made, and practices used in order to grow the church, and affect our community had nearly no need of a crucified savior.
These policies and practices, labeled therapeutic humanistic deism by Whitehorse Inn, were and are what I believed this quote from the post referred, and to what I was reacting. I have no problem stating that building large churches around a cult of personality that appeals to the unregenerate heart and rebellious mind, so that we can attempt to slip a little jesus in when they let their guard down, as heresy. And all the statements about building God’s kingdom here and now, are of no use in that context. Jesus Christ clearly stated that He would build His church, and our focus must be to spiritual kingdom of God.
As far as the fact that no church body has declared anyone heretic yet, a few have, and probably not nearly enough.
And really, my private accusations carry almost as much weight as your private refutation, methinks.
We are all the wretch that we sing about on the Lord’s days, I am certainly no better than the next guy, I just don’t understand why we as a culture (within the church as well) seem to loath offending people when we don’t seem to get upset when people tread all over the word and name of our God.
Mike,
My assertions are not private, they are confessional and creedal. That is the difference. I am hoping for a more catholic approach to this issue, and you are suggesting one that is incredibly narrow. I am siding with the councils and confessions on this one. They are more catholic when it comes to historical questions of eschatology.
Your notions of heresy are not historical either. Heretics come from within the church, then are ousted. Unbelievers never enter the church to begin with. Arius, Pelagius, etc. were ministers before they were declared as outside the church.
The Whitehorse Inn is run by Michael Horton who takes a very narrow, 2K view of eschatology. He and his friends have been sweeping their opponents into the field of humanism for some time now. It is just poisoning the well. There are many within reformed orthodoxy who do not agree with his assessments.
Take care,
Chris
Mike,
As an aside: read Iain Murray’s “The Puritan Hope” for some historical clarification of these issues.
Like it has been stated, I can appreciate that we are not “building” a kingdom of any kind. However, none of this talk should undercut the glorious truth that we GET to participate with God in His plan for the redemption of the nations. Not because it was something we devised, but because He designed it this way.
And thus the command to go, make, teach, and baptize(Matt. 28). Maybe Kevin’s post could be summed up with the pleasant reminder that the Great Commission does not start with “Go, therefore…” but “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”
“But we would be unwise to make that a covert way of reckoning that it is our task to bring about Yhwh’s reign, which would be laughable if it were not a Christian heresy that is alive and well (p. 27 [paragraph breaks are mine]).”
The application of Biblical law takes the work of a judiciary. When Biblical law is enforced, is not God’s kingdom nigh? When it is not, He threatens to withdraw, in fact the act of not-acting is His very withdrawal. Social justice cannot exist without law, and law originates in only one of two places: man’s fallen mind or God’s Word-revelation.
What the author is suggesting is the same two-tiered world of Roman Catholicism. Oh how magnetic is the pull. We seem to never escape its constant assault.
Like Kevin, I think it is important to reflect biblical thinking as accurately as possible. It preserves us from mindsets that can easily lead to heresy. We ‘receive’ the Kingdom. The Kingdom is God’s. As an image it suggests paramountly the sovereignty of God.
Yet, we should avoid overstating the issue. Sam’s farming analogy is surely right (1 Cor 3). Christ ‘builds’ his church yet Paul builds as a ‘master builder’ and others build upon it (1 Cor 3). In the great commission we are called to ‘make disciples’, a work in the final analysis only God can do.
In fact, some references suggest our involvement in the extension of the Kingdom. David is told, ‘I know that you will surely be king and that the kingdom of Israel will be established in your hands.’ (1Sa 24:20)
It is worth noting too that most NT references to the Kingdom seem to refer to the future.
John,
There seem to be two arguments happening here: first, the need to acknowledge that it is God’s kingdom and He builds it. Absolutely.
And, the fact that we are called to get in there and get calloused hands.
The two things are not at odds. In fact, when the saints are active in doing the works of the Lord it is a sure sign that He is in charge.
The antithetical tension is needless. We need to live with the two aspects without setting them against one another.
If the kingdom is so very future, then should we just sit down and wait it out? Silly, right?
The NT shows that the reality of God’s kingdom calls for action, not passivity.
The questions remaining, though, are “what type of action?” and “is this action to be identified with or labeled as building the kingdom?”
As Kevin has pointed out, the NT suggests “no” for the second question.
Greg,
But the book in question is on the Old testament. Not the New.
Kevin does not seem to be denying the advancement of the kingdom, but rather the establishment of God’s reign, which is absolute in the hearts of His people. This is why worship is central, the beginning of the week. The kingdom in history, as it is expressed in the other six days, is progressive. The establishment of Israel’s rule over the land was progressive, but it was absolute in the promise given to Abraham. God uses means— people, events, words, symbols, etc.— in history to do this.
I remember reading about the kingdom of God in G. E. Ladd’s NT Theology, that basileia tou theou usually refers to the “kingship” of God, his dynamic, active reign which he exercises in the earth (cf John 18:36 RSV). It is not a locality, though it can be entered into (John 3:3,5). I think this can also be seen pretty easily from the fact that the kingdom of God is a message which Jesus and the apostles declared, the “gospel of the kingdom.” I think a lot of the emergent theology has certainly pushed this out of whack. Even our preaching which brings about the faith whereby people enter the kingdom (Col 1) is not itself the reign of God. This reign is (a) the gospel itself, the message that God has faithfully brought about his victory over sin, death, the devil, and the world darkened and deluded in his sway; and (b) the power of the Spirit that regenerates people and brings them to faith in this message. We’re not bringing about the kingdom, though we are partcipants in God’s work of exercising his reign.
On a similar note, it seems too that a lot of recent scholarship has emphasized that the Gospels’ message of “the kingdom of God” is essentially the same thing as “the righteousness of God” in Romans. That is, God is faithfully exercising his reign to bring about the fulfillment of his promises to Abraham and to Israel for all mankind. I think this view of the “righteousness of God” is also much more inclusive than a mere “covenant fidelity” (e.g., Wright)–though certainly not less than this–and includes the promises of the Edenic, Abrahamic, and Davidic covenants as well.
Question: Does God use people to build His kingdom?
For example, if I commit to “live out the ethics of the kingdom” and “pray for the kingdom”, does this mean that I’m attempting to “build the kingdom” slash “usher in the kingdom” OR could it be that God is using me to do those things?
How would I know which side of the “heresy” boundary I’m on?
Interesting thoughts, Kevin. I certainly appreciate your heart and concern for this Christian triumphalism that often lacks theological depth and practical self-sacrifice for others. And I wholeheartedly agree that we need to worship with assurance God already reigns.
But, my first inclination is to say that you are missing some important things here. For us who live and work out in the marketplace (both of commerce and of ideas), outside the friendly confines of the church, such an attitude smacks of neglect. Is not the clear command of Scripture “Go”?
Your strong statement naturally makes me wonder if this neglect itself is not a Christian heresy as well. Furthermore, I wonder if this is not one of the reasons why so many openly challenge God’s reign by simply saying He couldn’t possible exist. Without the truth and love of Christ brought out into the thick of things, why should lost people think otherwise?
Who but us who are called out here into the marketplace will then have to give an account for that neglect? You can hold back the compelling example in word and deed of the transforming power of the gospel, but you have not convinced me, friend.
This is not about building God’s kingdom. It’s about effective communication of the truth of the gospel in the face of the strongholds and false arguments that oppress and enslave so many of our dear, lost friends around us. Check 2 Corinthians 10:1-6, my friend, and I ask you: What are we to do with these weapons but use them?
We are players in a much bigger plan. From another world religon: “The entire universe, with all its stars and planets are only 1/4 of God’s creation.” (a paraphrase) How can we think that we can do anything? The Kingdom of God is within us via the Holy Ghost, and it is in everything created. It is through the divine light that we reach God. The light is like a tree upside down where the branches (all true religions)can reach the light and commune with God in prayer and praise. The seed of Abraham that would “bless all nations” was Jesus. Jesus said near the time of his death, “Be of great joy for I have overcome the world.” (parphrase) He took the world back from Satan and death. The O.T. and as now, God reigns and as co-heir to the earth, Jesus reigns with Him. God has always been the owner of His creation. He heard the voices of the Isrealites (His chosen people to have a pure line to bring His Son through and as a promise to Abraham and love for David), yet, He determines what he will do and not do. *”We must get something clear..We are players in a much bigger plan, we must do the best we can, the measures of our souls are at stake, we must give more than we take.” and I don’t know the reason but I know I must put all my trust in Yhwh and Jesus because God knows better than I.
Shanda
Ps. *Quote from song on movie, “Joseph. King of Dreams.”